Over 100 people were murdered and hundreds more were injured this November in Paris by Islamic Fundamentalists. I’ve been listening to CBC Radio’s take on the terror that Muslims have unleashed in Paris, usually via the morning program called The Current. I inform myself regularly on what the Left is thinking and saying because our country seems always to be veering to the Left, more or less, depending on what political party is governing the country from Ottawa.
Many Parisian Muslims were interviewed by The Current about the recent events and situation in Paris. One of them communicated that Islam has nothing to do with these attacks. It’s a government problem, he said, by which he meant: the government is to blame. Another Muslim agreed with this statement, but added some information on the attacks being a government problem. He said that these attacks have something to do with Muslims in France having no opportunity to access information and cinemas. It is one thing to hope that we will believe that Muslims have no opportunity to access information, but quite another to hope that we will swallow the lie that they are not allowed access to cinemas! And as if this forbidden access ought to convince us that the attacks were therefore justified! It is a well-known fact that Muslims are not big readers. This is why they use such laughable arguments. They do not improve their intelligence by the acquisition of knowledge. The second Muslim even admitted that his brethren hang out at Macdonald’s, not libraries. European countries bend over backwards to accommodate Muslims. We adopt the same posture in North America. The attacks had nothing to do with Muslims being shut out or shunned in any way.
These comments by two Muslims are a fair representation of what Muslims communicate when asked about Islamic terrorism in Europe. The staff at The Current just accepts what the Muslims say because what they say is what the CBC wants to hear; why press for facts when you deny them as well? The Current put a quote from one of these Muslims up on its page for all to see because his line of thought is exactly the same as the CBC’s. “In France it is very, very difficult,” he said, “to be Muslim because there are so many people that have bad information about Islam.” The CBC and the Muslims contend that Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. Both the CBC and the Muslims have no doubt heard that the Koran commands violence, though; and they must be intelligent enough to make a simple deduction. Just google ‘calls to violence in the Koran’ or a similar phrase and the proof will cover your screen in a millisecond. Take this verse: “O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near you, and let them find hardness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)” (Surah 9.123.) What is the deduction? It is this: Islam commands violence, and so it is not, by definition, a religion of peace. So-called moderate Muslims and liberal media like the CBC assert that Islam is not violent, only peaceful. Strangely, only orthodox Muslims and conservative Westerners admit that the Koran commands Muslims to kill the ‘infidels.’
The CBC is always careful to bolster its propaganda with guests who toe the Multicultural-Marxist line. One such guest is Michael Privot, Director of European Network Against Racism. He does admit that some radicals are not poor, but university educated. But he falls in line with the lie about terrorism being caused by discrimination and ethnic profiling. The man’s job description is to ‘focus on radicalization within Muslim communities.’ His ‘focus,’ though, seems eerily similar to that of Islamic radicals, you know, the Muslims who actually practice their violent faith. From what he says, it is easy to believe, and not wrong to suppose, that Islamic terrorism, to him, is not so bad. If austerity continues, he says pugnaciously, let casualties continue. He says it as if a continuation of terrorism would be a decent outcome. If the word ‘austerity’ is being used by him as it is commonly used in Europe nowadays, his meaning is that if more money does not flow to the Muslims, let casualties continue, which means: let massacres continue. This is the same attitude, if not hope, that a Muslim expressed a day later on the same program.
The next guest was Ratna Omidvar, Chair of Lifeline in Syria. She urges us to trust the government concerning the screening of these refugees that are coming to Canada based on what the government has done before. If you follow politics, however, you will have learned that you should never trust the government based on what it has done before. You should always mistrust it. And do not trust a pundit when she tells you that you should receive refugees just because you have lots of room. Who has lots of room for refugees who are mostly Muslims of fighting age during an Islamic Crusade? We should have no room except for those whose religion is peaceful. Why shouldn’t the liberals use their gun control reasoning when it comes to refugees? Why not be consistent? If denying all refugees saves just one life, would it not be worth it? Canada is not assimilationist, Ratna says. Who does she speak for? She does not speak for all of us. Many of us think that those who come here should assimilate and adopt Canadian customs. Many of us think that if your religion calls for murder, you should not be granted access to our country, our people, and our generosity. Multiculturalism is not the great idea that we were told it was; it is especially bad when one culture out of the many has a book to follow that commands the other cultures to be annihilated.
The next guest was Gar Pardy, a former Canadian ambassador. He should be considered infamous for being an apologist for Omar Khadr and Maher Arar, Arabic media darlings of dubious virtue. Gar Pardy says this about the present problems with Islam: “Getting refugees to Canada, I think, is part of that larger fight of trying to do away with this scourge in the Middle-East and the problems that Europe is having as a result.” Gar is about as dubious for problem-solving as his two Muslim darlings are dubious for virtue. So inviting Muslim refugees to Canada who cannot be properly screened will help to do away with the scourge of terrorism that is going on overseas? All it will do is transfer some of the terrorism to Canada. Well, Canada’s a large country. We can absorb some terrorism, can’t we? We have treated the Sikhs well even though Sikhs were responsible for the Air India bombing in 1985, he argues. And that has worked out for us, he continues, for we have sixteen Sikhs in parliament now. Several things need to be said about this remark of his. (1) The file on this bombing is still open. (2) Having Sikhs in parliament should not be spoken of as a positive thing until these new parliamentarians prove their merit. (3) The Sikhs are not engaged in a worldwide jihad against ‘infidels.’
Both the host (Anna Maria Tremonti) and Gar Pardy put forward the same argument during the same broadcast, which leads me to believe that it is an official Leftist talking point. Reasonable people want the prime minister to never mind adopting 25,000 Syrian refugees; at the very least they want him to postpone the plan. Bringing that many refugees in by the New Year is extremely dangerous because they cannot all be screened by then. And how do you screen the refugees who have no documents? Tremonti and Pardy make the following point to those who fear Trudeau’s insane refugee plan: citizens of France and Belgium were involved in the attacks in Paris. The deduction they want us to make from this is that French or Belgian citizens are just as risky for us to receive as people from Syria. We would not refuse someone on the basis of being French or Belgian, so why should we refuse Syrians? That’s their point. They do not mention that the French and Belgian terrorists were Muslim, though. They were French and Belgian citizens, but they also were Muslims. We should refuse Muslims, no matter what country they come from or what country they are harbored in, for the terrorists of our day are Muslims, and the Muslim book is a book that calls for the mass murder of anyone who is not Muslim. Here is a prudent syllabus for screening refugees: let’s receive people who are not Muslim, and let’s focus on the most vulnerable and weak among them: babies, toddlers, kids, women, and the aged.
When a Saskatchewan premier and a mayor of a city as liberal as Quebec warn us to oppose the present refugee plan that Trudeau is shoving through, we best pay attention and put the pressure on. I usually don’t make predictions, but this one is easy and foolproof: if we receive 25,000 Syrian refugees by 2016, we will have acts of terrorism done to us by some of these refugees by 2017. Tremonti thought it strange to see a goat’s head in that part of Paris where she was interviewing Muslims. It is not strange to see a variety of heads where Muslims congregate. Some of these cut-off-heads might soon be Canadian heads. Tremonti’s head is so thick that she would find that hard to believe even if the first heads to roll were talking heads from her own studio.
I will summarize the CBC’s interpretation of Muslim terrorism: this terrorism has nothing to do with Islam; the Muslims who lash out do so because they are hard done by and discriminated against; if casualties continue, it is our fault for not giving Muslims more benefits and money; we should just trust the liberal government to screen everyone properly and safely; we should not expect immigrants to assimilate; Syrian-Islamic refugees are no more dangerous to make citizens out of than French or Belgian people; and receiving Muslims from Syria will go a long way to dissolving the present scourge of terrorism going on overseas. And here is the common sense interpretation of Muslim terrorism: this terrorism must have a lot to do with Islam, for the Islamic book commands the very terrorism that is presently being waged by Islamists; Muslims do not lash out because of discrimination or poverty, but because they have a mandate to kill ‘infidels’ in the book they worship by, and Muslim terrorists even testify that this is the case; we would continue to be casualties even if we gave the Muslims more money because their mandate to murder is the issue, not poverty; we should not trust the liberal government to give 25,000 Syrian Muslims a proper screening that will ensure our safety, especially since they have to do a rush job in order to meet their deadline; every immigrant should assimilate, not segregate; Muslims are more dangerous to our welfare than French people or Belgian people, unless these French or Belgian citizens happen to be Muslim. Most importantly, receiving Muslims from Syria will not contribute to solving the scourge of Islamic Fundamentalism; instead it will spread terrorism around, and it will cost Canadian lives.
In the event that Trudeau will not relent, my prayer is that those who voted Trudeau in will be the ones who are victimized and traumatized the most, if not exclusively, by the Muslim murderers. It is a righteous prayer to ask God to punish those who are most guilty for the harmful policies that our administration puts into practice. It is God’s way, too, to ordain people to die by their own devices, especially when they have scorned and rejected the gospel of God that has been available to them all their lives.
Psalm 119.119: “Thou puttest away all the wicked of the earth like dross: therefore I love thy testimonies.” The wicked of the earth are like dross. What is dross? The dross that Albertans will be familiar with is the stuff that tailings ponds are made of. Just as the oilman separates the impurities that cling to oil and sweeps them into a tailings pond, God separates the wicked from the righteous and brushes these wicked persons off the face of the earth and into hell. He does this on a daily basis, whether we realize it or not and whether we like it or not, because the Bible says so. God’s justice on display is one reason why Christians love the testimonies of God. That is what this verse teaches. Most Christians today are just pretend Christians, ignorant hypocrites who think that God is love and nothing else; they don’t love God’s word when God judges wicked people. When God judges wicked people, hypocritical churchgoers are quick to assert that the Bible has nothing to say about this and that God has nothing to do with it. But what about real Christians who love all of God’s word and every one of God’s attributes? They, like David, love God’s testimonies when wicked persons are taken away because the punishment validates the word of God that they trust. They have a right to love God’s word when it is vindicated. They have a duty to love God’s word when it is vindicated. It is a good thing when wicked people are swept aside like dross, no matter how sad it is. It is good for the word of God. It is good for the world. Yes, it is good for the world to see some of its wicked characters dispatched into hell, for the judgment makes at least some of the remaining sinners examine what they are about and what they believe. Being rid of persons of iniquity is especially relieving to members of the true Church. “In these evil days,” said Spurgeon when commenting on this verse over a century ago, “when God’s punishment of sinners has become the butt of proud skeptical contentions, we may regard as a mark of the true man of God that he loves the Lord none the less, but a great deal more because of his condign [appropriate] judgment of the ungodly.”
So if the terrorists must strike, Christians may pray that some wicked persons will be treated like dross when that happens, for the event will cause the testimonies of God to be more loved than they already are by the real Christians among us. We should pray for Prime Minister Trudeau to be humbled at the possibility of being the agency by which Muslim terrorists murder citizens that he is responsible to keep safe. Since Trudeau is a Roman Catholic, he probably calls himself a Christian. We should pray that he will begin to yearn for refugees who call themselves Christian and who, unlike the Muslims, have virtually nowhere in the Middle-East to flee for refuge. We should pray for the Muslims to repent, of course; we may also pray, in the meantime, in case they don’t repent, that they will be divided amongst themselves and that they will keep themselves busy by engaging in mutually destructive warfare in their old countries far away.
Canada needs to be punished, and it will be punished for its many sins. It must be punished for its ongoing mass murder of babies in the act of abortion and it must be punished for its continual blasphemies. In imitation of David (2 Samuel 24) when God asked him to choose what kind of judgment to receive for his act of disobedience, we should ask God to punish us by plagues instead of swords. We should pray like so: “If we must be punished, O God, give us breast cancer and prostate cancer for our sins of abortion; send a new strain of Aids for the increase of LGBT sins; give us new strains of VD for our sins of adultery and fornication; send throat cancer for all the blasphemies we spew; but whatever you do, spare us the gory sword of Muhammad’s false god, Amen.”
No comments:
Post a Comment